Appeal No. 1996-3507
Application 08/041,209
Figure 12 (squatting control) is the more relevant, because it
involves a determination of when the vehicle speed is
substantially zero, as required by the claims.
As appellants correctly note (Brief at 9), Ema's control
of the piston height as shown in Figure 12 does not constitute
control of the damping coefficient, as required by appellants'
claims. Appellants are also correct to note that even if it
did, Ema fails to show selecting and maintaining the highest
(or lowest) piston level whenever the vehicle speed is
substantially zero, as required by claim 1. Instead, during
the period ending at time t , while the vehicle speed is
1
substantially zero, the control unit selects and maintains the
intermediate or neutral piston height value N. Although the
second embodiment also employs damping control (col. 10, lines
55-59), it is the same as the damping control in the first
embodiment, which is responsive to vertical speed rather than
vehicle speed. Thus, although Ema discloses using vertical
speed to control the damping characteristic and using vehicle
speed to control the piston height, Ema does not disclose or
suggest using vehicle speed, let alone a substantially zero
vehicle speed, as the basis for selecting higher damping
- 10 -
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007